Today's guest is Ted Brown, the Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. Senate in Texas. Brown is facing off against Republican Ken Paxton and Democrat James Talarico in a closely contested race. Brown received more than 267,000 votes in his 2024 Senate campaign and is now challenging both major parties on their commitment to individual liberty. He argues that Republicans have abandoned limited government while Democrats increasingly embrace economic policies that undermine the free market.
Nick Gillespie talks with Brown about Paxton's corruption scandals, Talarico's hostility toward billionaires, and why Texas ranks poorly on personal freedom despite its business-friendly reputation. Brown makes the case for returning to an Ellis Island–style immigration system, cutting federal spending to confront the $40 trillion national debt, and ending America's military involvement in the Middle East. They also discuss abortion rights, government surveillance, online age-verification laws, and how regulations drive up the cost of healthcare. Brown explains what it will take to rebuild the Libertarian Party and why he believes a senator could accomplish more by stopping bad legislation than by passing new laws.
Representative Mike Lawler campaigning this month in Briarcliff Manor, N.Y. Mr. Lawler, a Republican, has made the higher federal cap on the state and local tax deduction central to his political identity.
Meta's board wants its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, to stick around — and stay local.
Kent NISHIMURA / AFP via Getty Images
Meta is offering CEO Mark Zuckerberg a $20 billion stock deal to keep him close to its headquarters.
The move speaks to a common belief that the best work happens when everyone is together in person.
Research suggests companies with far-flung CEOs pay a price for that distance.
Meta wants more than rank-and-file employees at the office. It wants CEO Mark Zuckerberg there, too — even if that comes at a hefty price.
The tech giant's board said in a securities filing Wednesday that it would create a new class of non-voting stock in part to keep Zuckerberg in control and give him a financial incentive to continue living near its headquarters. It described his presence at the office as "critically important" to its future success. Meta has required employees to come in at least three days a week since 2023.
Zuckerberg previously told the board he was considering moving in response to a proposed California billionaire tax. The stock deal would give the CEO $20 billion in "immediate liquidity" to cover the tax by selling stock without losing control of Meta, the filing said.
That arrangement carries particular weight at Meta, where Zuckerberg is leading the company's AI push. It also speaks to a common belief that has driven return-to-office mandates: The best work happens when people — including senior leaders — are physically together.
Staying local
Cole Rubin, cofounder of sports technology company FanFeed, said CEOs and other execs are sending a message to employees by physically working alongside them.
"You're not going to question why you're working long hours if you actually can see the leader doing the same," Rubin told Business Insider.
Having bosses in the office can also help a company move faster when unexpected opportunities arise, he said. Employees can walk into a leader's office, get an immediate answer, and act before the moment passes.
"It's not the scheduled calls where the magic happens," Rubin said. "When you have the decision-maker there, it gives people a lot of freedom to be able to feel heard."
A leader's presence is especially important during crises, said Bill George, former chairman and CEO of Medtronic, a medical-technology company. Being together lets executives quickly assess what has happened, gauge employees' reactions, and decide on a course of action.
"We've got to really feel what's going on emotionally, and we actually physically have to discuss it," he said.
George also noted that RTO demands placed on workers can ring hollow if the CEO doesn't follow them. "You've got to be there if your employees are there," he said.
Long-distance tradeoffs
Meta wouldn't have been the first company with a long-distance CEO if Zuckerberg had opted to leave the Golden State.
Brian Niccol was living in California when he was named CEO of Seattle-based Starbucks in 2024. The coffee chain had agreed as part of his hiring package not to require him to relocate. Later, it built a 4,624-square-foot satellite office five minutes from his home so he could work alongside colleagues, Business Insider first reported. Niccol has since purchased a property in Seattle.
Companies with long-distance CEOs don't perform as well on average as those with leaders on-site, according to a 2025 study by Boston College and Arizona State. They also have lower valuations and worse insider reviews, the findings show.
Meta's decision to woo Zuckerberg to stay in California was made by a special committee on its board, which said it was informed by challenges the company faced when he couldn't be physically present with management during the pandemic.
The committee said it didn't want Meta "to face similar challenges going forward."
French economist Gabriel Zucman has come to California bearing a familiar French solution to a fiscal problem: another tax.
Once based at the University of California, Berkeley, Zucman is back and campaigning for Proposition 40, which would impose an allegedly one-time 5 percent tax on the net worth of Californians worth more than $1 billion. Zucman, who coauthored the proposition, estimates that the tax could raise about $100 billion and claims that 90 percent of the proceeds would go to health care.
The California Legislative Analyst's office is far more cautious, saying it would raise only "tens of billions" and could cause a long-term loss of income-tax revenue as wealthy people leave the state with the companies they created.
I've written plenty about why wealth taxes are economically destructive, administratively nightmarish, and unlikely to achieve anything close to what their advocates promise. But Zucman's prescription is wrong for a more fundamental reason, as his (and my) native country shows: Raising taxes to fuel ever-larger demands for government spending is a recipe for disaster.
Unless you've been living in a remote cave recently, you've likely seen all the protests and destruction in France. But do you know why it's happening?
As another economist, Paul Krugman, rightly noted back in 2017, "France offers a social safety net beyond the wildest dreams of U.S. progressives: guaranteed high-quality health care for all, generous paid leave for new parents, universal pre-K, and much more."
For decades, France has answered any perceived desire with government spending, then responded to the resulting fiscal problem by seeking new revenue sources. Today, French government spending consumes roughly 58 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
Krugman gloated that France wasn't suffering social collapse and speculated that it was due to all the spending. He certainly can't say that anymore. In fact, he is now worried that France may be on the precipice of a debt crisis. The truth is that France hasn't done well for some time, even when Krugman cheered its spending.
One of the groups in the street today, young people, has faced widespread unemployment for a long time. The youth unemployment rate in France (ages 15-24) has hovered between 17 percent and 27 percent since 2000. In the second quarter of 2026, it was 21.6 percent, against 14.8 percent in the Eurozone and 9.9 percent in the U.S.
French people also pay some of the highest taxes in the developed world, and they're not happy with the return. The government already takes more than 52 percent of the country's output in revenue, runs deficits exceeding 5 percent of GDP, and has accumulated debt approaching 120 percent of GDP. Nonetheless, French students complain that the government is shortchanging schools, while everyone sees that it is shortchanging its army and police.
The students aren't wrong to feel left out. At The Two Cents Substack, Hoover Institution scholar Hanno Lustig calculates that, between 1995 and 2024, spending on social protection and health (most of which benefits older people) rose from 53.1 percent to 58.7 percent of all French government spending. The share devoted to education, defense, and public order fell from 15.2 percent to 13.7 percent. Transportation fell from 5.3 percent to 3.8 percent.
In other words, France has built an enormous welfare state, much of it devoted to older citizens, while letting other state capacities and basic services fall apart. As transfers of wealth swallow a larger share of the budget, everything else gets squeezed.
That is the fiscal ratchet Californians should worry about when Zucman tells them Proposition 40 is necessary to "save" health care. Proponents claim Washington "cut" Medicaid, but that language is misleading. California's deficit started long before any Washington spending reductions. Besides, federal Medicaid spending isn't falling—not even close. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will reach $708 billion in 2026, 8 percent more than in 2025. What Washington did in the 2025 budget reconciliation law was reduce Medicaid's future growth relative to previous projections, partly by changing eligibility and enrollment rules and financing arrangements.
This is how the ratchet works. Once the government projects a spending increase, anything less becomes a cut. And once Washington fails to finance the entire projected increase, Californians are told that Sacramento must backfill the missing money. And how should it do that? Conveniently, by creating an entirely new tax.
France has run this experiment for decades. It has an incredibly generous welfare state paid for with very high taxes; it's even tried a wealth tax and has a value-added tax, yet somehow it's never enough. Its welfare state has not eliminated scarcity. It has merely transferred the job of rationing scarce resources to politicians.
Zucman looks at California and sees hundreds of billions of dollars of private wealth waiting to solve a public finance problem. Californians should look across the Atlantic and ask a different question: What happens after politicians decide that every spending adjustment can be delayed until tomorrow by finding another pot of private wealth?
France should not be sending California tax advice. It should be sending a warning.
A proposed "wealth tax" on California's billionaires could backfire and cost the state tens of billions of dollars in the long run.
If the proposed tax drives wealthier residents out of the state, California could end up losing between $1 billion and $3.5 billion annually in income taxes, according to a working paper published this week. A pair of researchers at Stanford University warn that the state could end up losing an estimated $39 billion because of the consequences of the wealth tax.
"These findings suggest that the Billionaire Tax Act will not fulfill the primary functions for which it was designed," write researchers Benjamin Jaros and Joshua Rauh.
Voters in California will decide next month whether to impose the one-time, 5 percent tax when they vote on Proposition 40. The ballot measure is dividing Democrats—Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes it, while progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) claims it is the "most important ballot initiative in America and a fight for the soul of our party."
And it's already spurring some billionaires to flee the state—including venture capitalist Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Larry Page. Including those two, the seven billionaires who have publicly said they are leaving the state represent more than $539 billion of the nearly $1.9 trillion aggregate net worth of California's billionaires, the researchers note.
With other departures likely happening more quietly, the new study estimates that the tax will generate about $30 billion, a far cry from the $100 billion that the tax's supporters expect. The "behavioral response" from billionaires in California "has eroded most of the projected tax base," write Jaros and Rauh.
That's still a pretty big pot of revenue. In the long run, however, the state is likely to lose out.
After running 100,000 simulations using different assumptions, the two researchers report that "85 percent of plausible outcomes produce a negative" result in state revenue.
Capital is always mobile, despite the best efforts of politicians. And if you were a billionaire living in California, why would you stick around?
Polls show voters are narrowly divided over Proposition 40. A Politicopoll published earlier this month showed 46 percent of voters plan to vote for the measure, while 43 percent oppose it. Voters were similarly divided when asked if they expected it to pass or not.
La flat tax per autonomi e ditte individuali potrebbe arrivare fino a 100mila euro, ma con una precisazione: l’obbligo di applicare l’Iva a partire da 85mila euro.
È una delle ipotesi allo studio in vista della legge di Bilancio 2027 che deve ancora arrivare in Consiglio dei ministri.
Flat tax fino a 100mila euro, come funziona l’ipotesi
L’obiettivo è conciliare l’aumento del limite del regime forfettario, sostenuto con forza dalla Lega, con la direttiva europea che fissa a 85mila euro la soglia di riferimento per le agevolazioni Iva.
Oggi il regime forfettario prevede una soglia ordinaria di 85mila euro di ricavi o compensi. Chi rispetta i requisiti può beneficiare di un’imposta sostitutiva del 15%, che scende al 5% per le nuove attività nei casi previsti dalla normativa. Il sistema consente inoltre di determinare il reddito imponibile applicando ai ricavi o compensi un coefficiente di redditività legato al codice Ateco dell’attività.
In questo modo, i costi non vengono dedotti analiticamente uno per uno, come avviene nel regime ordinario, ma sono riconosciuti in misura forfettaria. Uno dei vantaggi riguarda anche l’Iva. Chi opera nel regime forfettario, infatti, normalmente non la applica in fattura e non è tenuto ai relativi adempimenti ordinari, come i versamenti periodici, la dichiarazione annuale e le comunicazioni delle liquidazioni periodiche.
Con l’ipotesi allo studio, il tetto dei ricavi o compensi potrebbe salire a 100mila euro senza estendere fino a quella cifra tutte le agevolazioni oggi collegate al regime. Il contribuente continuerebbe a pagare l’imposta sostitutiva sui redditi, ma sarebbe tenuto ad applicare l’Iva sulle operazioni a partire dalla soglia di 85mila euro, con i relativi adempimenti. La flat tax e il trattamento agevolato ai fini dell’Iva verrebbero quindi separati.
Per chi lavora prevalentemente con altre imprese, l’Iva potrebbe risultare sostanzialmente neutrale per il cliente, quando detraibile secondo le regole applicabili. Diverso il caso di un professionista che fattura a persone fisiche che potrebbe trovarsi a dover scegliere tra aumentare il prezzo finale del 22% e assorbire il costo dell’imposta riducendo il proprio margine.
Cosa cambia con la flat tax
In sintesi, se passa la riforma:
fino a 85mila euro si resta nel regime forfettario con le agevolazioni previste e senza applicazione dell’Iva in fattura;
oltre 85mila e fino a 100mila euro si resta nel regime forfettario fino alla fine del periodo d’imposta e si passa al regime ordinario dall’anno successivo;
oltre 100mila euro si esce immediatamente dal regime agevolato con applicazione dell’Iva secondo le regole previste.
Tirando le somme: la fascia compresa tra 85mila e 100mila euro diventerebbe una fascia nella quale continuare a beneficiare della tassazione agevolata sui redditi applicando, però, l’Iva.
Verso il Cdm di fine ottobre
Quanto detto però, in vista della Manovra 2027, dovrà affrontare quel bagno di realtà chiamato “coperture”. Entro la fine di ottobre il nodo dovrebbe essere sciolto. E mentre il Governo ragiona, c’è una scadenza importantissima in avvicinamento: alla fine del 2026 scade l’innalzamento da 30mila a 35mila euro della soglia di reddito da lavoro dipendente o pensione che consente di accedere al regime forfettario quando si svolge anche un’attività con partita Iva. Se non verrà prorogato, il limite tornerà a 30mila euro, restringendo le possibilità per chi vuole affiancare un secondo lavoro allo stipendio o alla pensione.
Jovem piloto de Beja termina época no 3.º lugar à geral na categoria Rotax Júnior e é o melhor Rookie
Quem esteve à pista do KIRO – Kartódromo Internacional da Região Oeste –, no Bombarral, no passado fim-de-semana, assistiu a uma verdadeira exibição de campeão por parte do piloto de Beja, Vicente Capela, que na 5.ª e última ronda do RMC Portugal 2026, protagonizou uma atuação de alto nível ao conquistar a pole position, vencer as três corridas finais da categoria Rotax Júnior Max, e fazer volta mais rápida da Final 3 e somando 152 dos 154 pontos possíveis na ronda.
A chegada à Bombarral representava um desafio de grandes dimensões. Ainda com possibilidades matemáticas de conquistar o título, Vicente estava a 110 pontos da liderança e precisava de uma prestação praticamente perfeita para continuar na luta pelo tricampeonato.
Não havia margem para hesitações: cada posição, cada ultrapassagem e cada ponto podiam fazer a diferença. Longe de abrandar o ritmo perante um cenário tão exigente, o piloto alentejano entrou em pista determinado a dar o seu melhor.
Bicampeão Rotax, com títulos conquistados nas categorias Micro Max, em 2024, e Mini Max, em 2025, Vicente Capela chegou à categoria Rotax Júnior Max com a ambição de conquistar o terceiro título e repetir o pódio de 2025, no RMC Grand Finals, quando levou Portugal ao 3º. lugar no pódio do Bahrein.
Velocidade desde a sessão de qualificação
No Bombarral, a resposta traduziu-se em resultados concretos e numa das suas exibições mais impressionantes do ano. No sábado (17), Vicente deu o primeiro sinal de que estava preparado para discutir cada milésimo de segundo.
Vicente Capela
Na sessão de qualificação, garantiu a pole position, com mais de dois décimos de segundo de vantagem sobre o segundo classificado, a conquistar um ponto extra. O melhor tempo confirmou o ritmo competitivo do piloto e abriu caminho para um fim-de-semana marcado pela precisão e pela consistência em pista.
Três vitórias para confirmar o domínio
Na Final 1, o piloto de Beja assumiu desde cedo a responsabilidade de defender a liderança e manteve o controlo até à bandeira de xadrez. Na manhã deste domingo (18), a Final 2, novamente, a arrancar da linha de frente, Vicente manteve a liderança de ponta a ponta.
A Final 3 confirmou definitivamente a superioridade de Vicente Capela, que controlou a corrida do princípio ao fim e conquistou a terceira vitória do fim-de-semana. Ainda registou a volta mais rápida, a garantir 152 pontos em 154 possíveis.
Uma ronda com sabor a superação
O tricampeonato não se concretizou desta vez, mas o desfecho da época não diminui o significado da prestação alcançada no Bombarral. Vicente demonstrou uma notável capacidade de reação e terminou o RMC Portugal 2026 no terceiro lugar da classificação geral da categoria Júnior, além de se sagrar o melhor estreante da Júnior Max. O resultado reflete um ano de aprendizagem e crescimento.
“A última ronda do campeonato, no Bombarral (KIRO), foi a demonstração da nossa velocidade na categoria Júnior. Entrámos em pista determinados a lutar até ao último milésimo e assinámos uma exibição excelente. Embora este domínio não tenha sido suficiente para anular os azares da ronda anterior, terminámos o Campeonato num orgulhoso 3.º lugar à geral. O balanço do nosso ano de estreia na categoria Júnior é muito positivo e deixa um aviso claro para o futuro”, afirmou Capela nas suas redes sociais.
A época de 2026 terminou ainda com Vicente a sagrar-se o melhor piloto na classificação Rotax Júnior Rookie, o que reforça a importância do seu desempenho no primeiro ano na categoria. Ao longo do campeonato, conquistou três pole positions e cinco vitórias em 15 corridas finais, além de um segundo e um terceiro lugares. Números que contam a história de um piloto que nunca deixou de lutar e que encontrou na reta final a oportunidade de reafirmar a sua competitividade.
De Portugal para o desafio mundial em Itália
Quase sem tempo para celebrar um fim-de-semana memorável, Vicente Capela já seguiu para Itália, onde enfrenta um novo desafio internacional. Esta semana, o piloto alentejano disputa o IWF Finals 2026 – IAME World Finals, na categoria X30 Júnior, no Leopard Circuit, em Viterbo. Será mais uma oportunidade para competir num palco internacional, frente a adversários de vários países, e levar as cores de Portugal a uma das provas de referência do calendário europeu de karting.
A new tax on added sugar in France could lead to higher prices for sweet products. The measure was proposed by the government as part of the 2027 draft budget and has been approved by members of parliament. However, it has raised concerns among manufacturers. The new tax follows an existing levy on carbonated drinks […]
At the peak of the tourist season and the tax evasion, officers of tax authorities decided to launch a 10-day strike and abstain from inspections. While the Independent Public Revenues authority AADE intensifies inspections in tourist destinations in the “heart” of August 15, the decision of the Panhellenic Federation of Tax Officials (POE-DOY) to proceed […]
Login
